2 1    I  5ws  of  the  Park  Commissioners 

on  Extension  of  Municipal 
1 §  Railway  Through 

Golden  Gate 
Park 


BUREAU  O"  Gr""~"'VtNTAL  RESEARCH 

Lfdh«»RY 
44  LIBRARY  BUILDING 


BUREAU  OF  GOVERNMENTAL  RESEARCH 

LliRAKY 
44  LIBRARY  BUILDING 


HON.  EDWARD  I.  WOLFE, 

Chairman  Public  Utilities  Committee  of  the  Board  of  Super- 
visors, City  Hall,  San  Francisco,  Calif. 

Dear  Sir: 

The  Board  of  Park  Commissioners  has  had  under  con- 
sideration the  request  of  the  Supervisors  presented  by  your 
committee  for  the  privilege  of  constructing  and  maintaining 
across  and  within  Golden  Gate  Park  an  extension  of  the 
Municipal  Railway,  for  the  avowed  purpose,  among  others, 
of  affording  increased  transportation  facilities  between  the 
Richmond  and  Sunset  Districts,  which  are  separated  by  the 
Park. 

The  Commissioners  have  carefully  examined  the  pro- 
posed plan  and  route  presented  by  the  City  Engineer,  and 
have  taken  into  consideration  all  the  arguments  which  have 
heretofore  been  presented  touching  the  public  convenience 
to  be  subserved  by  the  construction  and  operation  of  the 
proposed  extension. 

A  similar  request  was  heretofore  made  by  the  Board  of 
Supervisors,  and  was  denied  by  this  Board,  with  the  sugges- 
tion that  if  a  railroad  was  to  be  constructed  across  the  Park 
at  all,  it  should  be  by  a  route  other  than  the  one  then  under 
consideration. 

The  modified  plans  now  under  consideration  do  not  alter 
the  situation  or  remove  the  fundamental  objections  raised  to 
the  former  application. 

While  regretting  the  necessity  of  declining  to  authorize 
the  extension  of  the  roadway  as  now  requested,  we  feel  that 
there  is  no  public  convenince  to  be  served  which  would 
justify  the  damage  which  the  park  would  suffer  if  the  exten- 
sion of  the  road  were  permitted  as  now  proposed.  We  are 


therefore  of  the  unanimous  opinion  that  the  request  should 
be  denied. 

In  presenting  the  pending  application,  you  represented 
that  the  Park  Commissioners  were  appealed  to  by  the  Super- 
visors "as  a  matter  of  courtesy,"  which  suggests  the  inference 
that  the  Board  of  Supervisors  claimed  the  right  to  cross  the 
park  without  the  consent  of  the  Park  Commissioners. 

We  must  respectfully  beg  to  differ  with  you  with  ref- 
erence to  the  jurisdiction  of  this  Board  over  the  City  Parks. 
The  charter  in  distinct  terms  confers  upon  the  Commis- 
sioners the  complete  and  exclusive  control,  management  and  di- 
rection of  these  public  recreation  grounds,  and  the  exclusive 
right  to  erect  and  superintend  the  erection  of  all  structures 
thereon.  With  reference  to  the  management  and  control  of  the 
parks,  this  Board  is  clothed  with  the  same  power  as  the  Board 
of  Public  Works  in  its  particular  province.  It  is  an  inde- 
pendent body  clothed  with  exclusive  powers,  and  it  was  so 
intended  by  the  people  when  the  charter  was  adopted.  If  it 
were  not  for  this  exclusive  power,  the  Supervisors  would  be  at 
liberty  to  extend  through  Golden  Gate  Park  every  public  street 
which  is  now  intercepted,  without  the  consent  or  permission 
of  the  Park  Commissioners. 

We  cannot  believe  that  in  adopting  the  charter  any  such 
result  was  contemplated.  It  is  hardly  pertinent  to  inquire  into 
the  reasons  for  conferring  on  the  Board  of  Park  Commissioners 
the  exclusive  control  of  the  city  parks.  Having  accepted  office 
under  the  provisions  of  the  charter,  we  think  it  incumbent  upon 
us  to  obey  it  in  letter  and  spirit. 

We  wish  it  understood  that  the  Board  of  Park  Commis- 
sioners is  not  averse  to  permitting  the  municipal  railway  to 
cross  the  park,  but  we  must  insist  that  the  route  selected  must 
meet  with  the  sanction  of  this  Board.  This  attitude  of  the 
Park  Commissioners  has  heretofore  been  exhibited,  by  consent- 
ing to  the  running  through  Mission  Park  of  the  Church  Street 
line,  and  by  tendering  to  the  Board  of  Supervisors  a  route 


through  Golden  Gate  Park,  by  the  way  of  Twentieth  Avenue 
which  affords  a  central  route,  with  an  easy  grade. 

A  few  of  the  reasons  which  prompt  us  to  decline  the  re- 
quest of  the  Supervisors  may  be  noted: 

1.  The  destruction  of  the  beauties  of  this  part  of  the  park, 
one  of  the  most  important  and  highly  cultivated  sections.     It 
would  require  the  removal  of  345  trees,  and  substitute  scars  and 
blemishes  which  could  not  be  hidden. 

2.  The  danger  to  human  life  at  grade  crossings,  of  which 
there  would  be  four — one  at  Fulton  Street,  another  at  Lincoln 
Way,  and  two  others  at  drives  and  foot  paths  within  the  Park 
boundaries. 

3.  The  vertical  retaining  wall  (25  feet  high  by  nearly  400 
feet  long)    intended  to   strengthen  and  sustain  the  border  of 
Stow  Lake,  which  is  over  fifty  feet  above  the  sub-grade  of  the 
proposed  railroad.     It  will  be  impossible  to  beautify  this  wall 
and  the  space  above  it,  as  there  would  be  no  room  for  terraces, 
consequently  it  must  remain  bare,  making  not  only  a  blot  on 
the  landscape,  but,  acting  as  a  sounding  board,  will  reflect  the 
noise  of  the  moving  cars  toward  the  bandstand,  drowning  the 
sound  of  the  music,  probable  to  such  an  extent  that  it  would 
be  necessary  to  remove  the  music  stand  to  some  other  location. 
Even  if  it  were  possible  to  eliminate  the  retaining  wall  from  the 
construction  of  the  railroad,  the  noise  of  the  cars  would  still 
interfere  with  the  pleasure  of  the  audience  in  the  music. 

4.  The  public  convenience  of  intercommunication  between 
Sunset  and  Richmond  Districts  would  be  best  served  by  the 
construction  of  a  more  central  route,  to-wit:  Twentieth  Avenue, 
which  route  would  meet  with  the  approval  of  this  Board. 

5.  The  proposed  route  will  cross  a  space  700  feet  square 
set  apart  for  museum  extension  on  the  unit  plan,  one  unit  of 
which  is  now  about  to  be  constructed. 

6.  The   request   made  by  the   Supervisors  has   met   with 
protests  from  individuals  and  clubs,  which  are  entitled  to  more 


than  perfunctory  consideration.     Among  them  are  the  follow- 
ing: 

Forum  Club, 

California  Club, 

Laurel  Hall  Club, 

Haight  and  Ashbury  Improvement  Club, 

North  of  Panhandle  Improvement  Club, 

Vittoria  Colonna  Club, 

Peralta  Heights   Improvement   Club,  and 

Public  Ownership  Association. 

It  may  be  noted  that  the  last  Association  named  based  its 
protests  mainly  on  economic  lines,  asserting  that  such  an  ex- 
tension of  the  Municipal  Railway  would  result  in  a  loss  to  the 
City,  and  would  therefore  tend  to  discredit  municipal  ownership 
of  utilities  generally.  With  this,  however,  the  Park  Commis- 
sioners have  no  concern. 

In  support  of  the  application  we  have  received  only  one 
endorsement,  and  that  from  the  Park  Richmond  Improvement 
Club,  which  may  be  said  to  represent  public  opinion  in  the 
Richmond  District.  Undoubtedly  a  similar  opinion  is  enter- 
tained in  the  Sunset  District,  as  these  two  districts  are  the  ones 
to  be  especially  benefited  by  the  proposed  extension. 

7.  The  Parks  are  to  be  administered  in  the  interest  of  all 
the  people  and  not  a  part.     It  is  the  duty  of  the  Board  to  see 
that  the  Parks  are  not  commercialized  or  utilized  in  the  interest 
of  any  particular  locality  when  that  interest  is  not  in  harmony 
with  the  purposes  and  objects  for  which  public  parks  are  estab- 
lished and  maintained. 

8.  Where  the  public  convenience  suggests  the  propriety  of 
crossing  the  park  with  a  street  railway,  and  there  are  two  routes 
over  which  it  might  be  constructed,  one  which  will  seriously 
injure  the  Park,  and  its  highly  adorned  and  improved  areas, 
and  the  other  which  will  not  produce  this  effect,  the  judgment 
of  the  Board  should  be  exercised  in  favor  of '  the  latter,  par- 
ticularly when  it  appears  that  the  same  result  as  to  facilities 
of  intercommunication  may  be  accomplished. 

We  have  communicated  with  the  Park  authorities  of  numer- 
ous typical  cities  of  the  United  States,  with  a  view  of  ascer- 


taining  their  views  and  practice  in  the  matter  of  permitting 
street  railways  to  cross  the  Park. 

We  find  it  to  be  almost  the  universal  practice  to  inhibit  the 
cutting  up  of  parks  with  street  railways.  The  problem  of  get- 
ting people  into  the  Park  is  solved  by  transportation  facilities 
to  its  boundaries.  In  some  of  them,  notably  in  Baltimore,  the 
Commissioners  operate  a  phaeton  or  motor  bus  line,  with  such 
success  that  a  street  railway  extending  into  the  Park  was  aban- 
doned and  the  tracks  torn  up. 

We  may  quote  for  your  information  some  excerpts  from  the 
responses  sent  to  us  by  the  authorities  of  the  various  munici- 
palities, the  list  below  being  all  that  have  been  received,  except 
Boston,  which  has  street  railways  running  through  its  parks,  and 
which  are  said  to  be  public  conveniences. 

CINCINNATI.     (Board  of  Park  Commissioners.) 

The  Board  has  at  various  times  gone  on  record  as  strongly 
opposing  the  establishment  of  any  railway,  not  only  in  our 
parkways  which  are  in  process  of  construction,  as  the 
hard  lines  of  the  tracks  do  not  harmonize  with  Park 
conditions  and  the  road  bed  cannot  be  made  ornamental. 

NEW  YORK.     (President  of  the  Park  Board.) 

We  have  never  had  a  trolley  line  crossing  the  Park  on 
the  Park  level,  and  I  do  not  believe  that  such  a  road 
would  be  approved  by  the  public. 

NOTE:  The  roads  are  sunken,  and  in  many  places  so 
concealed  from  view  that  the  running  of  cars  is  only 
noticeable  through  the  noise. 

DETROIT.     (Dept.  of  Parks  and  Boulevards.) 

We  have  never  permitted  it.  In  our  largest  park  we  main- 
tain a  motor  bus  service  and  we  find  it  better  and  self- 
sustaining. 

BALTIMORE.     (Dept.  Public  Parks  and  Squares.) 

The  proposition  was  to  tunnel  through  with  surface  stations 
in  the  interior  for  the  accommodation  of  park  users,  but 
it  never  amounted  to  more  than  a  suggestion  because  of 
the  fact  that  the  increasing  use  of  motor  vehicles  for 
hire  as  well  as  by  owners  made  unnecessary  an  exten- 
sion of  street  railways  in  the  parks  for  Public  Conveni- 
ence, and  left  only  the  gain  to  private  land  owners  as  a 
reason  for  the  project.  (Italics  are  ours.) 


CHICAGO.     (West  Chicago  Park  Commissioners.) 

As  far  as  possible  it  is  the  policy  of  the  Park  Commis- 
sioners not  to  have  parks  cut  up  by  street  railways,  and 
have  not  opened  up  any  street  car  lines  through  the  parks 
where  they  were  not  originally  located  previous  to  the 
purchase  of  the  property. 

ST.  LOUIS.     (Commissioner  of  Parks  and  Recreation.) 

Where  street  car  lines  pass  through  Park  property  in  the 
St.  Louis  Parks,  the  condition  is  usually  very  ugly  and 
unsightly  and  at  no  time  during  my  experience  have  I 
seen  a  street  car  line  in  a  public  park,  either  in  this  city 
or  any  other  city,  which  in  my  opinion  has  an  added  at- 
traction to  the  park,  or  of  sufficient  benefit  to  the  people 
as  a  whole  to  compensate  the  unsightly  condition  in  the 
park  property.  There  is  considerable  agitation  on  the 
part  of  one  of  the  societies  interested  in  the  Art  Museum, 
which  is  located  in  one  of  the  large  parks  of  this  city,  and 
they  are  trying  to  force  the  construction  of  a  street  rail- 
way in  order  to  obtain  transportation  to  this  building. 
The  Park  Commissioner  has  taken  a  very  decided  stand 
against  this  railway  line  on  the  grounds  that  it  will  not 
add  in  any  way  to  the  beauty  of  the  park,  and  will  in 
fact  be  an  unsightly  and  unsafe  addition  to  the  park. 

MINNEAPOLIS.     (Board  of  Park  Commissioners.) 

I  believe  that  the  public,  who  is  making  use  of  street  car 
lines,  is  also  entitled,  to  a  certain  extent  at  least  to  the 
benefit  of  attractive  park  scenery.  It  goes  without  saying 
that  the  location  and  construction  of  the  tracks  must  be 
under  the  supervision  of  the  proper  park  authorities. 

These  views  we  think  accord  with  the  best  park  practice 
in  the  United  States,  and  are  in  harmony  with  the  judgment 
of  the  Park  Commissioners  of  this  city. 

We  trust  that  the  Board  of  Supervisors  will  see  its  way 
clear  to  adopt  the  Twentieth  Avenue  Route,  in  which  event  that 
Board  will  have  the  hearty  co-operation  of  the  Park  Commis- 
sioners. 

Respectfully  yours, 

BOARD  OF  PARK  COMMISSIONERS, 
(Signed)   By  CURTIS  H.  LINDLEY, 
Acting   President. 

JAMES  de  SUCCA,  Secretary. 

San  Francisco,  California,  May  4th,  1916. 

8 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A     001  132626     1 


